Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
The Pheua Thai government has now firmly clarified its position on moves to reform Thailand’s lese majeste law. The Bangkok Post quotes Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung who said:
Some people seem to overreach their bounds and express their wishes to amend Section 112…What right do they have to change it? What power? They can only talk…The [Pheu Thai] party will never change this law. I will also oppose anyone who proposes that it is changed.
He has, of course, said similar things before. But there is now no doubt that the lese majeste law will be maintained by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s Pheua Thai-led government for the foreseeable future. This raises all manner of intriguing questions and scenarios.
I think some of these were summed up best by Singapore-based political scientist Pavin Chachavalpongpun in The Wall Street Journal when he argued that:
Puea Thai supporters suspect that Ms. Yingluck may have struck a grand bargain with the traditional elites: If she leaves the lese-majeste law alone, they will not overturn her government by street protests, court cases and military intervention, as they did previous pro-Thaksin governments. If this is true, the class war is over and the Puea Thai has become an accepted part of the Thai elitist world.
This might bring stability to Thailand for a time. But it is not sustainable. In their frustration, Ms. Yingluck’s supporters may turn to more radical groups. The more the elites exploit the lese-majeste law for their own purposes, the more they erode true support for the monarchy. By stopping progress toward democracy, they are ensuring that when class war resurfaces it will be even more divisive.
This is an important line of argument and one that will, I’m sure, be developed over the months ahead.
The Phua Thai party has chosen to go against the people who chose them. Everyone knows why they won the election. Because the red Shirts have been killed by the order for the people who have ‘lese majeste’ to protect them, so the name of the real culprit cannot be mentioned. And Phua Thai was the very party who encouraged these people to come and protest for them. How stupid of them to betray their own voters by behaving like this.
Luckily I did not vote for them. I suspected that the Reds who have gone to protest and sit there for months in 2010 have been fooled. It is clear now that they really have been fooled. They died for nothing. In other words, the Reds who died were just a stepping stone for Phua Thai party to use it to claim their victory.
0
0
CT’s very broken-hearted and laments his perception of betrayal by Yingluck-PT Party.
“No We Can’t!” appears to be the new PT Party and Yingluck-Thaksin banner.
Reality bites.
0
0
Not wanting to give this government undue credit but I’d like to think a lot of what’s determining the course of action is the TIMING. I’d also like to think at the right moment the change will come more spontaneously thus minimizing the likelihood of, god forbid, a civil war. The potential for the kind of violence like we’ve never seen before is too great.
0
0
@Khun Vichai,
I think you skimmed my above post. Did you see this sentence?:
———> “Luckily I did not vote for them”.
I was not broken hearted at all. I know that Thaksin is too much of a politician. Actually, I was already annoyed since the beginning of the Yingluck fever with the Red Shirts (even up until now).
I voted for another person who I thought he was the most suitable. Well, that person came out and say some stupid stuffs months ago. Thus, I think from the next election onwards, I will probably skip it altogether. No point voting for anyone (unless someone who I really think is suitable appears on the scene)..
0
0
A betrayal – yes. Unexpected – no. Should make for an interesting few years ahead.
0
0
Why should there have been a “grand bargain” when Yingluck and her strategic advisors know very well which controversial issues this government can never touch?
0
0
Thanks Srithanonchai,
I suspect that’s the interesting part of the story. Can they (or any other Thai government) ever touch these issues? Some of the comments on this post already suggest it’s possible, just that it’s a matter of timing. Keen to hear other thoughts.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
Why would anyone think that PTP would be for changing the LM laws? What rural MP is going to stand up in the next election and tell his voters he supported a law that allowed people to insult the King? Do people actually think the grassroots UDD and PTP supporters would be in favor of that? That would be just the opening the both the BJT and Democrats would need to make serious inroads into the UDD heartland.
0
0
@John Smith #7,
If they cannot change it, then they should not make it worse. Did you see what happen after PT become the government? More people are being charged with LM, sentencing more severe, more attempt to crackdown on LM websites (such as buying the lawful intercept machine)…do they think by doing this they would ever win the hearts of the royalist fanatics?
Not only their effort in more serious crackdown completely futile, it would achieve nothing but dissuade more Reds to support them.
As to the question of whether the grassroots support the LM change or not, well, go to the North or Isaan into the ‘Red Village’, and listen to what the grassroots are talking. You will know what most grassroots think about the elites…and the people who are behind the wall of LM protection.
0
0
seems that many readers believe this is the untouchable X factor [112], but PTP insiders told me (rightly or wrongly) that this a game with the amaat — having to give the appearance of compliance while working behind the stage. I dont know whether a deal has been done– be hard to know for sure though certain “titled ladies” have visited Thaksin. We need to remember that PTP are a composite of the “good, bad and the ugly” (like any political party) and the 111 really smart pollies were banned by the amaat regime five years ago for being too good but are due to be reinstated 30 May. The choice PTP have is to limp on as they are now and hope for a sudden change/”passing”; or to be failed through coup (the military cannot be touched for the last coup or any future coup[113], and/or subject to extreme right wing [street] machinations and the reactionary forces of civil society/media. These can bring them down at any time. PTP are indeed caught between a rock and a hard place, but should be pressured nevertheless or they will be forced to leave needed changes to a mass democratic revolutionary movement.
0
0
‘Reality bites.’
What I meant is that Thaksin’s no. 1 priority remains his ‘amnesty’. And that priority Thaksin kept on reminding the true Peau Thai Party believers.
If Peau Thai Party is to take the lese majeste law, this would be a behemoth of an elephant that would squeeze out any other very important issues that really matters to Peau Thai Party . . . which is: The Thaksin Amnesty Stupid!
0
0
CT – @#10 : you’ve got it EXACTLY right.
0
0
I agree, go the Red Village and show them what is out there. Show them the “Boogey Thai” video and see what their reaction is.
Right now, all they hear about is is stopping reasonable political discussions, what you people don’t talk about is what the majority of the content actually is.
0
0
The govt’s compromised position on LM is painful to watch but does it actually indicate a worsening of the situation “on the ground” or is it just rhetoric?
I’ve recently interviewed several of the LM prisoners and a whole bunch of prisoners at the new political prison at Laksi.
These guys are in the front line of the political struggle and their views, for me, are important to hear.
In brief, what they told me was that they all think the govt has done the right thing by opening up the political prison.
In terms of LM they all consider it a “political crime”.
They all seemed to understand the difficult position the govt was in, and still felt, at least for the UDD non-LM prisoners, that it is “their govt” and was better than what came previously.
“It is not perfect but it comes from the people” one political prisoner told me.
I’ll be revealing what ALL of these prisoners, including the LM and political, said about both AI and HRW at a later date. I’m sure it’s pretty easy to guess.
As for 112 – I have heard from many sources that the Army are threatening a coup if there is an amendment. Some of the sources say that this is not an excuse not to amend or abolish LM and the govt should do it anyway.
To be honest, the Nitirat proposals for LM are also a compromise and if they were enacted would likely mean people would stay in prison. Why no criticism for HRW’s Sunai Phasak’s disgraceful comments on a previous LM case as revealed by the Political Prisoners’ Thailand blog? PPT also revealed that Sunai as a politicised anti-Thaskinite who was pro the 2006 military coup. An astonishing revelation that seriously undermines and damages the credibility of HRW to report on the present government with any degree of neutrality.
So my question is – if Human Rights Watch aren’t willing to take on LM cases unless they’re “attractive” is it then hypocritical of them to criticise the government when they don’t?
Furthermore, why aren’t some of the deficiencies in Nitirat’s LM amendments discussed? Should their be a prison sentence at all for LM? And what will happen to the existing LM prisoners should the Nitirat amendment actually happen? Or are academics and NGO workers the only parties allowed to make compromises on LM?
The govt is certainly guilty of making compromises on LM but it seems that so are many other parties.
0
0
One has to understand who ultimately owns Chalerm’s balls.
0
0
They sure can amend LM but on only one condition.
A new legal tool must be ready for them to serve their purposes.
Decades ago various laws were used and no LM was needed.
Examples are Communist Act, Article 17 of the constitution and Constitution protection act.
0
0
Just to clarify and reiterate my position . I want to reemphasize the issue of the timing. The transition will take place. It is inevitable. Having said that, I want to express my admiration for those who are courageous enough to take the initiatives and put up the fight. I want to encourage them on. Thai people are known for their short attention span and forgetfulness. So persistence is vital. As someone who has the vested interest in the actual state of affair and wellness of the country, I just want the outcome to be achieved with the least collateral damage, if that is possible.
0
0
Well, maybe the LM ball is now firmly in the Yingluck government’s court. PPT has been fairly reluctant to attribute any of the recent cases wholly to the Yingluck/Thaksin govt. However, it seems they have now found a new one that suggests a case found and being processed under this government (http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/is-this-the-yingluck-governments-first-lese-majeste-case/).
My perspective is that an LM case or two now would be functional for the govt and royalists as they try to get debate on LM closed down. Perhaps they can make calls for amending LM a case of LM (see Prayuth’s calls for Nitirat to shut up or be shut up: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/276845/prayuth-tells-nitirat-group-to-think-again).
0
0
Andrew Spooner #14; re- new political prison. Not sure which political prisoners have been transfered– but it is not 112’ers. In a recent statement from seasoned 112 victim Surachai Sae Dan, the proposed
highly discussed transfer of political prison or prisoners of conscience to a “special prison” has not eventuated. [http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2012/01/2-28.html] The Department of Corrections has been pressured by some “unknown forces” to exclude all 112 prisoners from the new deal. This determination of who to move and when is left to permanent public servants in the department (whose allegiance to “higher authority” is not to the elected government). Surachai is to write a letter to the Director General of the Department of Corrections and if no appropriate response he will commence a hunger strike. Readers may recall Surachai’s opening debates a few years back on 112 & related issues before his incarceration, which were actually devoid of any anger or ill-will. He, like other 112’ers, is a victim of political conscience as other less prominent 112 victims also fall foul of the new elite [amaat] cunning and its damning of 112 prisoners to a continued life of suffering and bullying in a mixed common prison for the most violent of Thailand’s criminals. This must end. Readers may wish to write a letter of protest to the DG of Department of Corrections:
Pol Colonel Suchart Wong-ananchai,
Director General,
Department of Corrections,
222 Nonthaburi 1 Street,
Suanyai Sub-district, Muang district,
Nonthaburi province, Thailand 11000
0
0
Jim
You’re correct. No 112 prisoners of any description have been sent to Laksi yet. In fact only those on remand and those whose cases are still on appeal for other political offences have been sent there.
So there is still some way to go but from all 112 and political prisoners we spoke to they viewed the opening of the prison as a significant and positive step.
We also spoke to Surachai and Somyot the other day in prison and will be publishing what they said in due course.
0
0
Timing. If not now, then when?
Not a few Royalists themselves were calling for the LM review and amendment. So too were many academics (one thread here at NM highlights this point). And this issue had been the focal mention by the Thai media for many months now.
Spooner and many other here are just writing overly long obfuscating excuses. Excuses and more excuses . . . and more to follow, definitely. But Spooner and Taylor gladly accomodates and obliges to explain for the backsliding Yingluck and PT Party.
CT is justified to feel betrayed and angry.
“NO YOU CAN’T” Chalerm threatens. “NO YOU CAN’T” Yingluck repeats.
Tell me folks . . . specially Spooner and Taylor when is exactly is the ‘perfect time’ for the PT Party and Yingluck to say “YES WE CAN”.
0
0
Vichai
Not sure what excuses I am making.
I am simply pointing out what the political and LM prisoners told me and that the various HR NGOs and even Nitirat are also willing to make compromises on LM. And, given the recent revelations in the wikileaks cables regarding the likes of HRW (that they wouldn’t intervene on LM and were pro-coup and pro-army and the previous revelations and comments by AI’s Ben Zawacki on LM) how then can any effective campaign against LM be mounted when such HR NGOs are so discredited and lacking in principle themselves?
These same groups then accusing the government of “backsliding” seems very hollow (particularly when they were telling the US Ambassador they supported a coup) and actually reduces their efficacy at the exact moment when they are needed the most.
To be honest I don’t see anyone from PT, the Dems, the HR NGOs, the media (foreign and domestic) acting with any great principle on this.
Remember most of the foreign media corps – who now all seem so eager to attack Yingluck – have said nothing for years about LM. Nothing at all. Neither did AI or HRW. And 5months into her first term they say her govt is “backsliding”.
When the troops are back on the streets using snipers to shoot nurses and school kids in the head as they were under the unelected and unman dated Democrat Party maybe HRW will have a point.
Finally, Vichai, when will you be mounting your own public campaign to call for the complete abolition of LM and the freeing of all political prisoners? What’s your excuse for not doing that? I mean you don’t even sign your comments with your full name.
0
0
That’ll be never. If you don’t make it happen… it won’t. That’s democracy. Apparently that ‘s why there are no democratic states on this planet.
0
0
“Finally, Vichai, when will you be mounting your own public campaign to call for the complete abolition of LM and the freeing of all political prisoners?”
Me Vichai? Who listens to me?
Naah . . . I am NOT a Red Shirt. And I don’t go around (Red) villages provoking and enraging farmers against the establishment.
Thaksin and Yingluck and Chalerm had been elected just for this honor.
0
0
c11
Reality bites.
c24
Me Vichai? Who listens to me?
As neat a conjunction as one could wish.
0
0
Andrew Spooner #14
Furthermore, why aren’t some of the deficiencies in Nitirat’s LM amendments discussed? Should their be a prison sentence at all for LM?
I had been making criticism of their proposals for about a month before they ‘launched’ their campaign on Jan 15, along the line not dissimilar from what you say here. (But it’s in Thai, on my FB, now temporary closed).
As you say, their proposals wouldn’t help free those in prison now; most of them committed what Nitirat’s proposal still regard as punishable (one example, a guy phoned Sirirat Hospital and said a few ‘rude/nasty’ things about certain members of the royal family).
It should be pointed out that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people (not academics or well-known writers ,etc who joined Nitirat in this campain), most of them red shirts, actually want the law to be abolish completely, rather than amending it.
………….
Ajarn Worachet had generously written a letter to me a few days before the campaign launch, explaining why Nitirat wouldn’t do as I suggested (propose a complete abolishion of the law). I’m in the process of drafting a reply.
0
0
Somsak
Yes, I was aware that you had been making some useful criticisms of the Nitirat proposals.
My view, as much as it is worth, is that the LM prisoners’ views needed to play a bigger part in what the campaign should be.
I’ve met both Amphon and his wife, as well as many of the other prisoners, and all struck me as articulate, able to understand the complexity of the issues and also to relate them to the wider political context. I don’t think they have been deliberately sidelined but it does seem like a tactical error to do so.
If the campaign isn’t about freeing the prisoners whom it is willing to use a “symbols” then its purpose seems abstract and diluted.
I also think that until the Thai human rights community manages to address its own failings – such as with politicised coup-supporting HRW staff members and pro-LM AI researchers = it will struggle to mount any meaningful campaign against anything.
0
0
Recent Yingluck’s speech and Chalerm’s rant really sicken me. (Btw VichaiN I didn’t vote for PT, I voted for the New Aspiration in case you bought your “reality bites” thinggy)
Anyhow, PT has overestimated their own popularity and underestimate the significant of the liberal element within the red. I felt like a new political party might emerge soon.
0
0
Tarrin –
Very happy to see your optimism that a new liberal political party might emerge soon. If so what might the first item on its policy platform be?
I suggest a Bill of Rights – Right to free speech, trial by jury etc.
On just how un-free we are in Thailand, I have been trying to find out what the “royal institution” means. Google tells me about the eminent and ancient scientific research body the British Royal Institution which is usually referred to as the Royal Institution as well as various Royal Institutions for specific areas of study.
If I searched for “Royal Institution” Thailand, a few entries appeared including a Wiki entry about Bhumipol where the term “royal institution” appears but is not defined.
Here is the extract from Wiki:
“Although Bhumibol is held in great respect by many Thais, he is also protected by lèse majesté laws which allow critics to be jailed for three to fifteen years.[138] The laws were toughened during the dictatorship of royalist Premier Tanin Kraivixien, such that criticism of any member of the royal family, the royal development projects, the royal institution, the Chakri Dynasty, or any previous Thai King was also banned.[139] Jail terms for Thai citizens committing lèse majesté are usually harsher than for foreigners.”
Footnote 139:
The original penalty was a maximum of 7 years imprisonment, but was toughened to a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 15 years. This harsher sentence has been retained to the current day, see Colum Murphy (September 2006). “A Tug of War for Thailand’s Soul”. Far Eastern Economic Review. As stipulated under the Constitution, lèse majesté only applied to criticism of the King, Queen, Crown Prince, and Regent. Tanin, a former Supreme Court justice, reinterpreted this as a blanket ban against criticism of royal development projects, the royal institution, the Chakri Dynasty, or any Thai King. See David Streckfuss. “Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lèse-Majesté as Political Crime in Thailand”. Comparative Studies in Society and History 33 (3): 445–475. The reinterpretation has stood to the present day.
I still do not know the meaning of royal institution in the Thai context but have a better understanding of the system of fear ruling over the country.
Returning to my earlier suggestion for a Bill of Rights. Were this to be adopted the law of libel would vanish and with it these attempts to quash free speech which politicians so frequently resort to (e.g. the latest: Noppadon suing the Democrats on behalf of Thaksin over something allegedly said but not apparently printed in a book of interviews)
My view is that it is better to focus on free speech, which of course includes the right of reply than Article 112 which has a more limited scope.
0
0
I am amused that Tarrin (#28) is suddenly sickened by Chalerm’s rants (LM threats). But just maybe Crusader Chalerm is just all bark but no bite.
At one time, I think during the Y2007 campaigning with the late Samak S., Chalerm Yubamrung publicly vowed to “execute” Thaksin’s foes. Now Chalerm Y. is Deputy PM, has he executed any Thaksin “foes” yet?
Bow wow wow.
And the late Samak S., an ultra-lese-majeste-swinging-rightist-royalist actually headed (at Thaksin’s behest) Thaksin’s PPP party. So what’s all these bemoaning that Yingluck-Chalerm-PT Party has backslided and betrayed the ’cause’?
The PT party has no cause other than the Thaksin cause. Right Tarrin?
0
0
LM may be too hot a political and social issue for today’s politicians to address. But they could prove their commitment to the principles of freedom of thought and expression by dismantling Thailand’s other criminal defamation laws. Doing so would make them more credible.
0
0
The Red Shirts should have for long realized that they have been buffaloes for the Pheuthai Party. The present government just wants only political power to make the invisible prime minister richer and richer. Sorry for the poor buffaloes. Ha ha ha.
0
0
VichaiN – 30
Just for the record I never “suddenly” change my stance about my perception on Chalerm or PT. If you even care to read my other previous post you might noticed that I never really praised them or given then any credit.
As for “The PT party has no cause other than the Thaksin cause. ” Actually I would rather say the establishment’s cause rather than Thaksin’s. Vichai the problem with your thinking is that you are just too stuck up with Thaksin that you fail to look at the big picture. Often times you mistaken people like me or CT for being pro-Thaksin but we are way beyond that.
0
0
@RU #32
I think the “red buffaloes” who favour democracy and social welfare are still clevered than the yellow buffaloes who favour the parasite who does nothing but sucks taxes from the Thai people until he becomes the richest parasite in the world. Not to mention that this parasite kills his brother, has a wife who enjoys destroying democracy and killing her own subjects, has a son who is a sex maniac who has a porn star as his wife.
I think the yellow buffaloes are much more stupid that they favour these people who should not even born.
0
0
IF a grand bargain has been struck, then we should assume that Thaksin’s return is only a matter of time (with no resistance from the anti-Thaksin elites).
But this does not seem to be the case, or are there any signals that suggest such a bargain.
0
0
@CT 34
Can you or any of your red buffaloes point out a country more democratic than Thailand in SE Asia in 2001?
Ever wonder why there were no coups between 1992 and 2006?
You are just another brainwashed empty head prancing around and declaring yourself, laughably, dtaa sawang.
0
0
I will have to most vehemently protest at the vicious, malicious, unprovoked and undeserved calumny directed by CT (#34) to the unloved (water) buffalo.
More ignorant anger than fact, CT should know there is no such thing as a yellow buffalo. But the Thais adore their Red Bulls and Carabao Daengs (Red Buffalo)!
0
0
Longway – 36
What’s the point of the questions?
Why comparing Thailand with other counties in the SEA in terms of one being “more democratic”? For one, democracy doesn’t have a “degree” you either have or have not. You can have it in one form or another but you can’t have more or less of it.
Furthermore, why ask “Ever wonder why there were no coups between 1992 and 2006?”‘??? really, I think the bigger question is “Ever wonder why we have 18 coups and other countless coup attempted in the past 60 years?” Coup is so common in Thailand’s history that it has become part of our political system, is our history start from 1992?
Maybe before calling someone else “stupid” (sorry but buffalos doesn’t really translated to stupid in english so I assumed you meant stupid). You might want to reread your question a bit and think about it.
0
0
Tarrin, CT and SteveCM should be delighted to hear that their champion PM YIngluck made a big impression with her very recent attendance at that very elite World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland. In one particularly momentous Davos session, Thai PM Yingluck extemporaneously and eloquently articulated her sympathies and concerns for the (sexually) exploited and abused Thai women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2ktL77vnA
Yingluck announced that she will put up a foundation to provide financial and educational access to these Thai women in deprivation. I think she said she completely understands their situation, and using herself as an example – ‘money and education’ allowed her not to be what those Thai women had to endure. Or something like that, Yingluck was so overcome with honesty and concern I think that was what she said. At any rate I was deeply moved and so were her elite audience. (I believe they will invite Yingluck again next year at Davos!).
0
0
c38
I believe they will invite Yingluck again next year at Davos!
Something of a certainty if she still holds the office of Thailand’s PM…..
Quite how Vichai N arrives at his “champion” notion is beyond me to fathom – much like the rest of his lyrical input here.
0
0
PPL tend to forget that the PPP government initiated and invested 100M Baht in systems to track LM-abuses on the internet. 2 months before Abhisit was elected.
Some of the UDD followers, mainly the very leftist ones ( or ex- (?) communists ), are clearly anti-monarchy and are so full of the Prai-Amnart crap that their vision is blurred. But PT, and the majority of the “red” followers love their king and would most likely approve of the continuance of harsh punishments for LM abuses. Sad as it may be.
Please don’t just expect the PT to be this way or that way without having a clue or assuming things based on wishful thinking. The evidence is clear, from way back, that the PT are pro LM, if they think they gain anything from it.
Please have a look @ http://2bangkok.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/scouts01.jpg on http://2bangkok.com/fencing-off-sanam-luang.html. Why do they have yellow shirts?
0
0
Vichai N – 39
Really, I think you are just too obsess with the “Shinawatra”. I don’t really care much about Yingluck, matter of fact, I never even listen to a single word of her speech. Now most of my free time has been spend on Nitirat and their 112 campaign. Just letting you know.
0
0
After that [email protected] video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2ktL77vnA
I will have to ask: Is the Peau Thai Party leader and Thai PM Yingluck Shinawatra a bimbo or not?
0
0
” Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. ” – Unless, that is , they are made by Vichai N.
I thought the PM’s comments on the need for better education to empower women were consistent with research from many countries.
0
0
#41
Didn’t you find it somewhat hard to watch Yingluck’s statement, I wonder?
0
0